PIE vs. Proto-World (Proto-Language)

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

I don't think I'm following.

>	You raise the questions of what is relationship and what is the
>difference between language and speech.
>	All languages are related in the same sense that all humans are
>related.

Why that ? Language is a cultural item, a world-three-phenomenon (Popper),
basically an artefact (though one constructed less consciously than hammers
and anvils, admittedly). Humans are related by material relationships we
are endowed with by birth. Language has to be learned, in each and every
case; every single bit of them (basically uncontroversial; I add a tiny bit
of possibly controversial stuff: even the traits of languages which are
"universal" are learned).

> All humans settled on oral speech rather than sign language or
>flatulence for communication.

There is no need to view this as an invention, which, by its specificity
and ingenuousity, can only have taken place once. It may have taken place
several times, because oral speech is the one means of communication which
is in functional terms vastly superior to signs or flatulence. This is
because of the possibility of having a doubly articulated system (a finite
set of meaningless elements are combined to form a [still ]finite set of
meaningful ones, which can be used to form an infinite set of meaningful
utterances; do this with modulations of flatulence and you have your
language).
Because it is so vastly, tremendously practical, oral speech won the day
among humans with brains capable to process all the neuronal activity
necessary to control and handle it.

> Given that all human brains are wired for
>speech in the same way, this suggests that there is a degree of
>relationship.

I contest this given. Human brains are *capable* to process language, i.e.
sign systems complicated and open enough to do the things language does.
That any specifics of these systems are hard-wired in human brains is
sometimes asserted (and sometimes makes its way into the popular press in
these days of reductionism) but not necessarily demonstrated. Some believe
this, some don't, guess what I do ;-)

>	I don't think this question can be answered in absolute terms but
>it may possibly be answered in practical terms. Given that modern humans
>left Africa about 100,000 years ago, there is a good chance that all of
>these are ultimately related.

What has this time-span to do with the good chance you mention ? There is
also a good chance that modern humans, when heading out of Africa had
several, if not many, languages, culturally stabilized to be
group-defining, yet materially independent from each other. We don't know,
whether the one scenario or the other is nearer to the "truth". But I, for
one, find the polygenetic one equally possible, if not slightly more
appealing. First you have to have the brains (and, yes, the vocal tract
will help as well) to manage such a thing as language (not with anything
pre-wired-in, just the capability, i.e. the neuronal complexitiy needed).
Then you will find out with tremendous speed just how *handy*  such a thing
as articulate vocal language is for any kind of group activity. It may well
be the most useful thing humans ever invented (I use "invented" without
irony, but please be aware of the "world-three-phenomenon"-caveat I
introduced above, or maybe in one of the other posts I have been firing
today ...). So, this very usefulness, this simply ir-re-sis-ti-ble
usefulness will lead intelligent beings to develop such a thing, resp. to
make the more intelligent and powerful ones bestow it on their
in-group-members (which are pre-human phenomena, of course). Being able to
do it and finding it so ri-di-cu-lous-ly useful is enough to actually do
it. Some attempts are successful, some less so (i.e. some languages make
the step from intra-group codes to means of inter-group communication
aso.). This *could* be the story.
Or do you think the trick of banging the rocks together was invented only
once ? Or that of throwing meat into the fire ?

We should overcome the romantic view of seeing in language something as
"natural" as having 32 teeth. Language is there because it serves a
fantastic range of *functions*, and it is in terms of these functions that
we will eventually understand it.

PS: I know this is controversial, I have at least the whole MIT community
against me (Or better, lest this sounds pretentious: I would have them
against me if they knew who I am, which fortunately they don't ;-), and,
though this scares me a bit, I take the freedom to express on this informal
medium: eppur si muove ;-)

But, on the other hand, I know I'm not entirely alone ...

St.G.

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32